News from “Bloomberg” about a TwitterTWTRbuyout saw Twitter’s shares shoot up 8% on Tuesday, and then drop back down when traders figured out the story was fake. The SEC is looking into the hoax, but the agency won’t be able to solve the underlying problem that made it possible in the first place: anybody can get their hands on a company name website to make mischief.

Tuesday’s con, for instance, appeared on “Bloomberg.market,” a site that has nothing to do with the financial giant, but was bought by the scammers and tarted up to look like a real Bloomberg site. Now, it’s just a matter of time before someone tries again in the hopes of making money off a share price spike.

Think it’s hard to pull off such a scheme? Nonsense, all you need is a competent web developer and a realistic web address to post your fake story. And those addresses are incredibly easy to get. One tempting target might be “NewYorkTimes.market,” which was for sale on Wednesday for $34.99:

The screenshot above is taken from Name.com, which is one of many domain name brokers where anyone can purchase a website name. This means the perpetrators of the Twitter hoax, or other enterprising scammers, could buy “NewYorkTimes.market” and mock it up to look like the real Times NYT site in the hopes of moving the market.

In the past, it would have been more difficult to buy a “company” website since there were only a handful of domain endings, including .com and .org, and the company in question likely owned them. But now, thanks to ICANN’s decision to open up naming rules, there are literally hundreds of options (such as .office or .forex or .luxe, and so on).

While ICANN and media outlets have portrayed the arrival of these names as a “land rush,” companies have quickly found the names to be a gigantic nuisance; corporations are put into the untenable position of either buying and paying renewal fees for hundreds of sites they don’t need, or else watching cyber-squatters or scam artists acquire the name. Now, after the Twitter-Bloomberg hoax, the companies can add market manipulators to their worries of how their names will be abused.

While the ICANN system includes some nominal protection for trademark holders, it is hardly airtight. Meanwhile, the interests of the domain name operators, which make money from registrations, are typically not aligned with the companies. For instance, the operator of the “.sucks” domain asked companies to pay $2,500, or else see the name sold to the general public for $10.

Already, the Twitter episode has led to renewed criticism of ICANN’s policies.

“ICANN needs to do a better job of insisting that registrars ascertain the legitimacy of folks they register and do it beforehand, rather than after a major problem like this,” said Jon Leibowitz, a lawyer with Davis Polk and former FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz, to the National Journal.

This is the most controversial domain name on the Internet

That’s the question that members of Congress, the Federal Trade Commission, and even of the organization that approved it in February—the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann)—are now asking.

Some call the domain extortionary as it’s forcing businesses and others to pay a premium for “[name].sucks” website addresses—for fear that another malcontent will come along, snap up the name, and employ the site as a digital pillory for that brand, person, or firm. Whereas a typical new domain might cost less than $100, Vox Populi, the company that owns the rights to sell “dot sucks” domains, suggests $2,499, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“Icann says it approved the .sucks domain because no one objected,” the Journal reports. “Now, it says doesn’t have authority to block the domains or control the pricing.”

Those limitations led Icann last month to ask governmental authorities such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Consumer Affairs in Canada to investigate Vox Populi’s practices. In fact, the controversy has flared just months before a proposal by the Obama administration would pass Icann’s regulatory responsibilities to “an undefined, international, ‘multi-stakeholder’ body,” the Journal reports.

Not only does the future of “dot sucks” hang in the balance, so does the power of the non-profit partnership that has managed web domains for nearly two decades. Already, buyers have claimed such websites as “starbucks.sucks,” “jpm.sucks,” and “reeses.sucks,” according to the Vox Populi website, and top searches include: “TaylorSwiftsCat,” “YourMomma,” “Racism,” and “This.”

Here are the companies most sought after for a “dot sucks” address, according to Vox Populi:

Apple

Google

Microsoft

Facebook

Comcast

Walmast

CocaCola

McDonald’s

Sony

Amazon

A full list of available web domains approved by Icann can be found here. A quick skim through the catalog reassures one that “dot sucks” is likely the most controversial—certainly more so than “dot boats,” “dot cricket,” “dot ninja,” or “dot guitars.”

Second-most? Probably “dot exposed.”

The Vox Populi website—www.nic.sucks—advertises its intention to “foster debate and share opinions.” That seems to be working.